On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 09:34:26AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> Mark Brown wrote:
> > Right, it appears to be trying to make sure that someone might possibly
> > run into in Debian has been covered. Like I say, this is a large part
> > of my problem with it at this point - I don't think that is a
Mark Brown wrote:
> Right, it appears to be trying to make sure that someone might possibly
> run into in Debian has been covered. Like I say, this is a large part
> of my problem with it at this point - I don't think that is an
> achievable or useful goal and it does lock out people like translat
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 03:02:52PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Friday 17 July 2009, Mark Brown wrote:
> > achievable or useful goal and it does lock out people like translators
> > (though that's more of a theoretical concern than a practical one).
> That last is simply not true. If someone want
On Friday 17 July 2009, Mark Brown wrote:
> Right, it appears to be trying to make sure that someone might possibly
> run into in Debian has been covered. Like I say, this is a large part
> of my problem with it at this point - I don't think that is an
> achievable or useful goal and it does lock
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 11:46:31AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> If 'not using the templates' is just an excuse for "I think there's just
> way too much stuff in the templates, and I want to get this over with,
> with as little effort as possible", then I will not accept it. However,
> if the ma
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 09:20:00PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 03:46:50PM +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> > On Thu Jun 25 13:23, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > > I stopped being an AM largely as a result of the introduction of the
> > > templated questions. I felt that all I was d
On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 09:08:26AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> I don't think the ftpmaster group should trust another group to do
> full reviews if the ftpmaster group is the one legally responsible
> for the archive. Sure, it might be useful, since they might get
> problems fixed before the p
]] Stefano Zacchiroli
| So, would it help you FTP masters to have an explicit declaration of
| review for a NEW upload or not? If the reviewers are named, you might
| build your trust on different people (which I believe you already have
| anyhow, as it is normal to be) and so on.
I don't think
Le Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:16:35AM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit :
> Le Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 06:02:11PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> >
> > I think it's clear from the copyright files already in the archive and
> > that are accepted daily by ftpmaster that listing the individual files
> > is unn
Lucas Nussbaum dijo [Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 11:50:17AM +0200]:
> > I do know that, as it was part of my NM, but I'm not sure I'd write the
> > same thing as an intro sent to debian-project.
>
> Also, after one or two years in NM, you might have some new things to
> say about you, and your interests
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 23:17:15 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:47:16PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
[reviews of debian/copyright]
> > You know, there is one set of packages that *usually* passes NEW
> > pretty fast? Thats because they do something similar to that. They
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 07:14:19AM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > What I don't get from your text is: are you aware of the extra reviews
> > on a per-package basis, or you just noticed that tose packages are
> > usually OK and then discovered that the reasons are extra reviews?
>
> Noticed after
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 07:12:55AM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > This, however, sounds like a good reason for few application. You are
> > basically requesting people, most likely already involved in Debian
> > and doing that in their spare time, to have to offer 5-10 additional
> > hours per wee
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>> I'm working on a cronjob already which is able to read the data from the NM
>> database and will send out such mails to -project. It will rely on the fact
>> that
>> new DDs should receive an account on merkel.
>
> Why dont you just use ldap and not rely on something unsta
> I'm working on a cronjob already which is able to read the data from the NM
> database and will send out such mails to -project. It will rely on the fact
> that
> new DDs should receive an account on merkel.
Why dont you just use ldap and not rely on something unstable like the
assumption that
Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Bernd Zeimetz said:
>> Don Armstrong wrote:
>>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
Ok - then I guess my problem is that the list of names included in
these is so non-notable (and is empty most weeks anyway...) that it
doesn't
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:00:23PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 02:04:34AM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
>
> > > Something is definitely wrong here, IMHO.
>
> > Maybe it's your assumption or assertion that the only point o
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009, Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Bernd Zeimetz said:
> > Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > >> Ok - then I guess my problem is that the list of names included in
> > >> these is so non-notable (and is empty most weeks an
This one time, at band camp, Bernd Zeimetz said:
> Don Armstrong wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >> Ok - then I guess my problem is that the list of names included in
> >> these is so non-notable (and is empty most weeks anyway...) that it
> >> doesn't register at all with m
Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
Kęstutis Biliūnas wrote:
Say the truth to each loser would be more honestly, I think.
One such unfortunate,
So you think you are a loser? I don't think so. What I know from your AM is that
your progress towards becoming DD and knowing all the things a DD needs to
Peter Palfrader wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
>
>> Something is definitely wrong here, IMHO.
>
> Maybe it's your assumption or assertion that the only point of NEW is
> checking the copyright file.
It is my assumption that this is the part of NEW that is the most time
cons
Kęstutis Biliūnas wrote:
> And why you still leave those losers, who during the 2...3 years, failed
> to become a DD? Rather, they only cause damage to Debian. All of them
> should be removed from the MN queue. Only problem in that the need for
> each of them to explain the reasons why he is reject
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bernd Zeimetz rašė:
> Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>
>> Also, after one or two years in NM, you might have some new things to
>> say about you, and your interests in Debian might change, so an updated
>> introduction would be interesting, indeed.
>
> The NM
Mark Brown (25/06/2009):
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 03:46:50PM +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> > I didn't think that using the templates was required for AMs, merely
> > a useful tool. I think AMs should be able to check to their
> > satisfaction in other ways as appropriate, as long as it produces
Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> Ahh... the old dear bureaucracy!
> "It is not my task, so go away and never come back" ;-)
>
> Is it so difficult that a cronjob will call two scripts and merge the
> results
> in a single mail?
yes.
--
Bernd Zeimetz Debian GNU/Linux D
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Also, after one or two years in NM, you might have some new things to
> say about you, and your interests in Debian might change, so an updated
> introduction would be interesting, indeed.
The NM process should not take two years. If it does, there is something clearly
goi
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 09:28:04AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 06:02:11PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > I think it's clear from the copyright files already in the archive
> > and that are accepted daily by ftpmaster that listing the individual
> > files is unnecessar
> What I don't get from your text is: are you aware of the extra reviews
> on a per-package basis, or you just noticed that tose packages are
> usually OK and then discovered that the reasons are extra reviews?
Noticed after lotsa uploads. The reasons I guess from the little i know
about the grou
> This, however, sounds like a good reason for few application. You are
> basically requesting people, most likely already involved in Debian
> and doing that in their spare time, to have to offer 5-10 additional
> hours per week, to know as much programming languages as possible, and
> (IIRC) to
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 02:04:34AM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
> > Something is definitely wrong here, IMHO.
> Maybe it's your assumption or assertion that the only point of NEW is
> checking the copyright file.
He's right that binary NEW is not t
Le Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 11:17:15PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
>
> I was wondering whether we could, for instance, sign with different
> keys a NEW upload to notify FTP masters about the number of people
> which reviewed a given package to give you "hints" (of course
> according to the rep
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
> Something is definitely wrong here, IMHO.
Maybe it's your assumption or assertion that the only point of NEW is
checking the copyright file.
--
| .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux **
Peter Palfrader | : :' : The
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 11790 March 1977, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>
>>> In my experience, package splits go through in a week or two except in
>>> rare situations. That never seemed like a difficult wait to me.
>> Ack. Same for adding debug packages and similar things like soname bumps.
>
> Those
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:47:16PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Nothing at all blocks you from asking for reviews from other
> maintainers. Do it, PLEASE DO IT. The more people that do it, the
> less the rejects we have to do in NEW, the less the size of NEW. You
> do not need to redefine anything
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:47:16PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Stop whining, volunteer to do the work. ftpmaster did ask a *lot* of
> times for volunteers to help with that. What we got have been a handful
> of people only. Some dropped out due to lack of knowledge, most to lack
> of time. As of
> I didn't think that using the templates was required for AMs, merely a
> useful tool.
Correct, noone is forced to use the templates. There are some questions
you *must* have, but thats a handful. All the rest is up to the AM.
> I think AMs should be able to check to their satisfaction in other
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 03:46:50PM +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Thu Jun 25 13:23, Mark Brown wrote:
> > I stopped being an AM largely as a result of the introduction of the
> > templated questions. I felt that all I was doing was shooting enormous
> I didn't think that using the templates
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 02:36:15PM -0500, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:21:21PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > I didn't think that using the templates was required for AMs, merely a
> > > useful tool. I think AMs should be able to check to their satisfaction
> > > in other way
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:21:21PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > I didn't think that using the templates was required for AMs, merely a
> > useful tool. I think AMs should be able to check to their satisfaction
> > in other ways as appropriate, as long as it produces a similar result
> > (you are
Matthew Johnson writes:
> On Thu Jun 25 13:23, Mark Brown wrote:
>> I stopped being an AM largely as a result of the introduction of the
>> templated questions. I felt that all I was doing was shooting
>> enormous reams of paperwork at applicants which I didn't really felt
>> helped with anythin
"Giacomo A. Catenazzi" writes:
> Is it so difficult that a cronjob will call two scripts and merge the
> results in a single mail?
I think it would be inappropriate to send public notices about retiring
maintainers without their explicit permission. In some cases, they may
be retiring for reaso
Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:35:30AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>> Mike Hommey wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 01:32:14AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> Ok - then I guess my problem is that the li
Stefano Zacchiroli writes:
> FWIW, I consider listing files in DEP5-style an advantage in complex
> packages because it helps out in checking for the completeness of your
> license/copyright review. Yes, it is more work, but you gain that you
> can check whether a given source file has been forgo
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 11:16:46AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I think, and I believe the ftpmasters would agree, that they will
>> enforce project consensus provided that it doesn't strike them as
>> legally dangerous or otherwise seriously problematic. I would rather
On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 18:11 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 25/06/09 at 17:45 +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 02:43:53PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > I said that I considered some people ready to start NM, because I was
> > > sure that they would be perfectly ready t
On 25/06/09 at 17:45 +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 02:43:53PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > I said that I considered some people ready to start NM, because I was
> > sure that they would be perfectly ready to be a DD by the end of the NM
> > process (i.e a year and a half
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 02:43:53PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> I said that I considered some people ready to start NM, because I was
> sure that they would be perfectly ready to be a DD by the end of the NM
> process (i.e a year and a half later, basically), and that they would be
> good NM appl
> On Tue Jun 23 11:30, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > - the NM process could be reduced to 5 to 10 questions choosen by the
> >AM amongst the 50+ questions currently in the NM templates, to verify
> > that the applicant has some knowledge about different aspects of Debian
> > packaging. Then the AM
On Thu Jun 25 13:23, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:34:12PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>
> > The NM process should neither be pain for the NM nor for the AM. If it is
> > I'm
> > happy to hear the facts why it is pain, instead of useless babbling.
>
> I stopped being an AM large
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:34:12PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> The NM process should neither be pain for the NM nor for the AM. If it is I'm
> happy to hear the facts why it is pain, instead of useless babbling.
I stopped being an AM largely as a result of the introduction of the
templated ques
On 25/06/09 at 12:29 +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:58:22PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > On 23/06/09 at 22:35 +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > > This one time, at band camp, Lucas Nussbaum said:
> > > > I've been advocating people "too early" (i.e, I've advocated people
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:58:22PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 23/06/09 at 22:35 +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > This one time, at band camp, Lucas Nussbaum said:
> > > I've been advocating people "too early" (i.e, I've advocated people so
> > > that they could start NM, while in the meantime,
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:01:40PM +0300, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
> New maintainers usually write info about themselves during a first part of
> working with AM, and this info is also included in the AM report.
Yeah, but that might be outdated by the time they actually become
developers; when I
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:52:59AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> In the former case FTP masters are wasting their time, in the latter
> case their role is indeed useful to "defend" our mirror tenants, but
> then copyright reviews must be *intensified*.
I would prefer a more real-time mirrorin
On Wednesday 24 June 2009, Frans Pop wrote:
> /me wonders whatever happened to those nice mails listing new DDs that
> used to be sent out periodically
To cut this discussion short, I hereby volunteer to send out the "New
Maintainer" overviews. I'll probably rename them to "New Debian
Developer"
On 25/06/09 at 11:24 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:01:40PM +0300, Eugene V. Lyubimkin
> wrote:
> > Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 07:42:15AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > >> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:48:42PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> > >>> No nee
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:01:40PM +0300, Eugene V. Lyubimkin
wrote:
> Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 07:42:15AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:48:42PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> >>> No need for that. Read debian-newmaint for a summary if you're in
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 11:15:35AM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> I'd include their short biography (a few lines) that is sent to -newmaint.
>
> The whole point of this exercise is that the short biography cannot be
> automated, so it takes too much time from FD t
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 11:15:35AM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 01:32:14AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> >>> Would it be enough to just have a special automated mail
> >>> congratulating new developers on -newmaint (or modify the subje
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:52:59AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>
>In the former case FTP masters are wasting their time, in the latter
>case their role is indeed useful to "defend" our mirror tenants, but
>then copyright reviews must be *intensified*.
>
>Have we ever asked SPI lawyers about wh
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:35:30AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 01:32:14AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> >> Don Armstrong wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Ok - then I guess my problem is that the list of names included i
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 08:00:59PM +0200, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> Frans Pop wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > I can appreciate that, but is it unreasonable to expect the FD to at least
> > send a simple overview (list of names) of who have been accepted in the
> > project during the past x months?
>
> I th
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 01:32:14AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>>> Would it be enough to just have a special automated mail
>>> congratulating new developers on -newmaint (or modify the subject of
>>> this mail to congratulate them?)
>> I'd be happy to modify the cronjob
Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 01:32:14AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
Ok - then I guess my problem is that the list of names included in
these is so non-notable (and is empty most weeks anyway...)
Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 07:42:15AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:48:42PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>>> No need for that. Read debian-newmaint for a summary if you're interested,
>>> that's why the AM report is posted there. Definitely I'm not goin
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 01:32:14AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> > Would it be enough to just have a special automated mail
> > congratulating new developers on -newmaint (or modify the subject of
> > this mail to congratulate them?)
>
> I'd be happy to modify the cronjob to send such mails to -pr
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 08:23:49PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> And how do you know that the due diligence Debian shows in seeking
> to avoid distribution of software in violation of copyright isn't
> the *reason* that Debian has avoided being sued?
We don't know, but it's guesswork in both sens
On Thursday 25 June 2009, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 06:23:19PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > I can appreciate that, but is it unreasonable to expect the FD to at
> > least send a simple overview (list of names) of who have been
> > accepted in the project during the past x mont
Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 01:32:14AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>> Don Armstrong wrote:
>>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
Ok - then I guess my problem is that the list of names included in
these is so non-notable (and is empty most weeks anyway...) that it
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 06:23:19PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Wednesday 24 June 2009, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > The second type, the one I believe Frans is referring to, is sent
> > manually. It takes a lot of work and effort to create it (looking up
> > the required information, copying and pas
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 07:42:15AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
>On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:48:42PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>>
>> No need for that. Read debian-newmaint for a summary if you're interested,
>> that's why the AM report is posted there. Definitely I'm not going to ask our
>> AMs to d
On 2009-06-25, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Cf. <87ofiygrkx@tacitus.systems> for the explanation of how NEW got the
> way it is (with rationale), as well as
><20010909160205.b8...@azure.humbug.org.au> on debian-private (9 Sep 2001)
> and the debian-private list archives for July 2001 for more infor
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 06:02:11PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I think it's clear from the copyright files already in the archive
> and that are accepted daily by ftpmaster that listing the individual
> files is unnecessary if you have all of the licenses accounted for
> (and potentially copyright
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 11:16:46AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Or, more importantly, an actual consistent policy (with rationale) from
> > the ftpmasters to say what they require.
> I think, and I believe the ftpmasters would agree, that they will
> enforce project consensus provided that it do
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:47:11PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Debian has never been sued for distributing software it didn't have the
> right to distribute in its archive (despite having distributed such
> software in the past), and you are afraid of allowing DDs to download
> the content of th
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:48:42PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> Julien BLACHE wrote:
> > Frans Pop wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> >> I can appreciate that, but is it unreasonable to expect the FD to at least
> >> send a simple overview (list of names) of who have been accepted in the
> >> project d
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 01:32:14AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> Don Armstrong wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >> Ok - then I guess my problem is that the list of names included in
> >> these is so non-notable (and is empty most weeks anyway...) that it
> >> doesn't register
Le Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 06:02:11PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
>
> I think it's clear from the copyright files already in the archive and
> that are accepted daily by ftpmaster that listing the individual files
> is unnecessary if you have all of the licenses accounted for (and
> potentially cop
Charles Plessy writes:
> For instance, it was unclear in the DEP5 discussion if we only need to
> list the license, or if we have to indicate which files they were
> found in (as it is done in the example provided on the latest
> published guildeline, see the URL below). Can we have an answer abo
Le Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 11:16:46AM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
>
> I think, and I believe the ftpmasters would agree, that they will
> enforce project consensus provided that it doesn't strike them as
> legally dangerous or otherwise seriously problematic. I would rather
> have a consensus than
Le Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:47:16PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert a écrit :
>
> We *happily* accept everyone as trainee that does not get a NO from the
> existing team[1] and let them do trainee work. Have 5 til 10 hours a
> week? Can deal with the points written down in [2]? Mail us.
Hi Joerg,
You never
Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> Ok - then I guess my problem is that the list of names included in
>> these is so non-notable (and is empty most weeks anyway...) that it
>> doesn't register at all with me.
>
> Would it be enough to just have a special automated
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Ok - then I guess my problem is that the list of names included in
> these is so non-notable (and is empty most weeks anyway...) that it
> doesn't register at all with me.
Would it be enough to just have a special automated mail
congratulating new devel
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 11:07:13PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Steve Langasek (24/06/2009):
> > I do follow d-newmaint, but I don't think the reports that are sent
> > there actually include the names of new maintainers.
> If you don't think, then check?
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-newma
On 24/06/09 at 22:53 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > Stop whining, volunteer to do the work. ftpmaster did ask a *lot* of
> > times for volunteers to help with that. What we got have been a handful
>
> Same thing applies for FD and AMs btw. Lucas indeed spent a few hours on
Steve Langasek (24/06/2009):
> I do follow d-newmaint, but I don't think the reports that are sent
> there actually include the names of new maintainers.
If you don't think, then check?
http://lists.debian.org/debian-newmaint/2009/04/msg00054.html
Excerpt:
| Weekly Summary Statistics
| =
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Stop whining, volunteer to do the work. ftpmaster did ask a *lot* of
> times for volunteers to help with that. What we got have been a handful
Same thing applies for FD and AMs btw. Lucas indeed spent a few hours on doing
the regular FD tasks, but went away then. If you're
On 11790 March 1977, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>> In my experience, package splits go through in a week or two except in
>> rare situations. That never seemed like a difficult wait to me.
> Ack. Same for adding debug packages and similar things like soname bumps.
Those are all simple additions of bin
Julien BLACHE wrote:
> Frans Pop wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> I can appreciate that, but is it unreasonable to expect the FD to at least
>> send a simple overview (list of names) of who have been accepted in the
>> project during the past x months?
>
> I think the AM could provide a summary for that m
On 11790 March 1977, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Then NEW. Nothing out of the ordinary here: NEW delays are often raised
> on -devel@ (see [1] for example), and it's apparently considered normal
> to wait 2 or more weeks before one's package gets reviewed. Since this
> often blocks other works, it is
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 05:45:35PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> OK, but that's not the one I meant. We also had one with the new DD's
> intro of themselves that was sent to d-project [1]. The last one I can
> find quickly is from early 2007 [2].
> I always found it very useful as most DDs don't foll
Ben Finney writes:
> Russ Allbery writes:
>> That I can definitely agree is a concern, and it would be very nice
>> to figure out a way to find project consensus on what should and
>> shouldn't go into the debian/copyright file.
> Or, more importantly, an actual consistent policy (with rational
Frans Pop wrote:
Hi,
> I can appreciate that, but is it unreasonable to expect the FD to at least
> send a simple overview (list of names) of who have been accepted in the
> project during the past x months?
I think the AM could provide a summary for that mail, after all, the
AM should know t
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:39:20PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Chris Lamb and Samuel Thibault both applied very late. Much too late.
> Before they applied, several people have been wondering why they
> weren't DDs yet. I'm not sure why they didn't apply earlier, but the
> fact that our NM proces
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 11:45 PM, Frans Pop wrote:
> OK, but that's not the one I meant. We also had one with the new DD's
> intro of themselves that was sent to d-project [1]. The last one I can
> find quickly is from early 2007 [2].
> I always found it very useful as most DDs don't follow d-newm
On Wednesday 24 June 2009, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> The second type, the one I believe Frans is referring to, is sent
> manually. It takes a lot of work and effort to create it (looking up
> the required information, copying and pasting the relevant sections
> from the relevant mails, doing some ma
Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Frans Pop (24/06/2009):
>> /me wonders whatever happened to those nice mails listing new DDs that
>> used to be sent out periodically
>
> They still are (see debian-newmaint@, “NM Report for Week ending…”), but
> AFAICT there might be something wrong there, since Samuel w
On Wednesday 24 June 2009, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Frans Pop (24/06/2009):
> > /me wonders whatever happened to those nice mails listing new DDs
> > that used to be sent out periodically
>
> They still are (see debian-newmaint@, “NM Report for Week ending…”),
> but AFAICT there might be something
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 05:21:48PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Frans Pop (24/06/2009):
> > /me wonders whatever happened to those nice mails listing new DDs that
> > used to be sent out periodically
>
> They still are (see debian-newmaint@, “NM Report for Week ending…”), but
> AFAICT there mi
Frans Pop (24/06/2009):
> /me wonders whatever happened to those nice mails listing new DDs that
> used to be sent out periodically
They still are (see debian-newmaint@, “NM Report for Week ending…”), but
AFAICT there might be something wrong there, since Samuel wasn't
mentioned end of may/beginn
1 - 100 of 155 matches
Mail list logo
